Do Computer Science students think their education offers value for money?
Mostly no. Across the National Student Survey (NSS), the costs and value for money theme records 88.3% negative comments (sentiment index −46.7 from 5,994 comments), and in computer science students particularly link value to assessment clarity and delivery, where marking criteria sit at −47.6 and feedback at −27.8. The theme distils how students weigh tuition, extra costs and outcomes across UK higher education; the Computer Science grouping in the Common Aggregation Hierarchy aggregates programmes sector‑wide. These insights frame the cost, content and communication issues below and the remedies institutions implement now.
Many students today question whether the high fees, which can be around £9,000 per year, reflect the quality and utility of the education they receive. This pressure intensifies in Computer Science, where rapid technological change demands current, applied teaching. Students surface these issues through NSS open-text and institutional channels, signalling a need for providers to analyse and act on what drives poor value perceptions: opaque costs, repeated content, variable delivery, and unclear assessment information.
How do high tuition fees shape perceptions of value for money?
The concern over high tuition costs in relation to the value received remains pervasive among Computer Science students in the UK. With annual fees commonly at £9,000, many are critical of the educational quality they receive, voicing concerns that it does not align with the financial investment made. Students highlight the technical nature of their studies, which demands up-to-date, industry-relevant skills. They expect visible alignment between spend and outcomes, and a “total cost of study” view that sets out what fees cover, typical extra costs, and when they arise. Providers strengthen trust when they publish what is included in fees at programme and module level and standardise reimbursement processes with service targets.
Why does course content feel inadequate?
A common grievance among Computer Science students is the realisation that a large portion of their course material isn't introducing new concepts, but rather revisiting familiar topics. Many students report that up to 85% of the curriculum covers information they have already encountered prior to university, which casts doubt on the value for money of their education. Institutions need to rebalance foundations with substantive, current material that advances knowledge and skills. Partnerships with industry and the use of live briefs help students see progression and relevance, while keeping module choice and learning resources aligned to current tools and practices.
Where does teaching quality fall short?
Students describe a gap between how Computer Science should be taught and their experience of predominantly lecture-based delivery. Programmes benefit when they prioritise applied learning, lab-based activity and session structures that make aims, activities and takeaways explicit. Students consistently respond well to approachable staff and predictable access; teaching gains credibility when delivery methods match the practical demands of the discipline and when labs, tooling and environments are stable across the cohort.
Why does communication about modules and assessment feel opaque?
Ambiguous instructions and inconsistent feedback undermine learning and make value for money feel tenuous. Students want direct, accessible communication that links study to real-world application and employment. Standardising assessment briefs, publishing annotated exemplars, and using checklist-style marking criteria improves transparency and reduces avoidable queries. Setting a single source of truth for course communications, with concise weekly updates on “what changed and why,” supports organisation and helps students plan their time and spend.
What challenges arise in online learning for Computer Science?
Online delivery offers flexibility but often under-serves hands-on learning. Students question value when virtual provision does not replicate access to labs, environments and collaborative problem-solving. Programmes that invest in virtual lab tooling, predictable support hours, and structured peer activity mitigate these gaps and make remote or blended study feel purposeful, not a lesser substitute.
How do accommodation costs interact with study needs?
Accommodation costs magnify concerns when advertised prices omit compulsory add-ons such as internet access, which is essential for Computer Science. Students expect transparency about the full cost of living and how proximity to facilities balances price. Providers that adopt “no surprises” policies, surface total costs early, and target support before cost-heavy periods help students budget and sustain engagement.
What needs to change to improve value for money now?
- Publish a transparent total cost-of-study view per programme, standardise cost guidance in module handbooks and the VLE, and set turnaround targets for reimbursements.
- Prioritise assessment clarity: provide exemplars, rubrics and feed-forward guidance, and timetable realistic feedback turnaround to support learning and perceived value.
- Stabilise delivery and operations: name an owner for timetabling and organisation, keep a single source of truth for changes, and issue short weekly updates.
- Strengthen applied teaching: expand lab-based work, ensure consistent access to tooling, and use live industry problems to connect theory to practice.
- Target the most sceptical groups with proactive communication and early support, and use short pulse checks after high-cost or high-effort activities to close the loop quickly.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics shows where value-for-money concerns bite hardest by mode, age, subject and cohort, and traces movement over time. You can drill from institution to programme, segment by site or cohort, and produce concise anonymised summaries for teaching teams and operations. Like-for-like comparisons across subject groupings and demographics support prioritisation, while export-ready tables and narratives make it straightforward to brief colleagues, track actions and evidence progress for NSS and internal quality processes.
Request a walkthrough
Book a Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready governance packs.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
More posts on costs and value for money:
- Do politics students feel they get value for money?
- Is UK finance education worth the cost?
- Are UK art students getting value for money?
- Is biomedical sciences good value for money?